What I'm watching

#497/#48 The Hunt for Red October

(Rewatch)

When a Russian submarine with a new type of silent propulsion drive goes missing in 1984, and the entire Russian fleet goes out looking for it, the American’s quickly presume one of the Russian’s submarine captains has gone mad and is heading for them. CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Alec Baldwin) believes however, that the captain, Ramius (Sean Connery), is actually attempting to defect with the stolen sub. Hoping for the best, but planning for the worst, the government gives Ryan three days to try and prove this theory, otherwise they will be forced to destroy Ramius and his ship.

Red October is easily the best of the Jack Ryan films. It’s got a complex and compelling plot about espionage shadow games, two interesting main characters, a great supporting cast and a couple of intense submarine action sequences. It’s pretty much everything you want from a Cold War thriller. It hits the right balance of dialogue and action/tension to keep you invested in the plot and wondering if this encounter will finally be the one which gets Ramius caught. 

Ramius has got to be one of Connery’s better roles. Even in his most dire movies Connery is still entertaining, but when he’s committed to a role he can really make it connect with the audience. As Ramius he actually doesn’t talk a great deal but you get all of the weight and emotions of his character through his body language and presence. This interacts with his XO Vasiley (Sam Neill) are particularly telling. He hasn’t made this decision lightly, but now that he has set his course there is no way he can be deviated from it.

I also think Baldwin is the best screen version of Ryan we’ve had to date. He feels every bit like the reluctant hero who only ever planned on working in the background but won’t refuse the call when needed. He just fits as an smart and capable, yet equally out of his depth, analyst. He also manages to be funny without taking away from the magnitude of the situation. Harrison Ford is a great actor but he was too old for the part, for one thing, and never felt like he was overwhelmed by what was happening to him. It’s a personal preference, but Baldwin just fit the bill better for me.

I’d honestly forgotten how good this movie was, and if nothing else comes from working through the Jack Ryan movies, I’m glad at least it got me to rewatch this thoroughly entertaining movie. 5/5

#331/#48 The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

(Rewatch)

At the turn of the century, some of literature’s greatest heroes, including Allan Quartermain (Sean Connery), Captain Nemo (Naseeruddin Shah), Mina Harker (Peta Wilson), Dorian Grey (Stuart Townsend) etc, come together in order to stop a meglomaniac’s plan to start a world war.

Everyone has that one film. That film that is, by all accounts, totally and utterly horrible but you love it all the same. You and everyone else can see it for what it is but you just do not care and you love it all the more. TLOEG is that film for me. It’s so bad, and it gets so many things wrong but I don’t care. It apparently butchers the comic source material horribly but I just don’t care. I can see all its faults but I still just sit there with a big grin on my face every time I watch it.

I’ve actually become more well read because of this film as every time I watch it its makes me go away and read one of the characters actual books. I’ve read Dracula, The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, The Invisible Man and made attempts at 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Picture of Dorian Grey and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes over the years purely because of this movie. Not many other films can say they’ve gotten you to read afterwards.

I can’t even tell you why I like it so much. The actions fairly flat, the stories really silly and the effects are all ridiculous. I think it might be because of the characters and the actors. They’re just enjoyable to see interacting with one another and the actors appear to work well together.

As I say I know it’s garbage but I also know I’m going to be watching this film multiple times again in the future and still enjoying it so for me 3.5/5 for everyone else 1/5.

…now who’s story to read this time?

#300/#17 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

(Rewatch)

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) takes up the mantle one last time to track down his missing father (Sean Connery) and the holy grail before the Nazis do.

I go back and forth on this because Raiders and Grail are both so good, but when pressed I’d say this is my favourite of the entire series. It’s got everything I love about the original film and James Bond is playing Indy’s Dad. How do you beat that?

Like the previous films the story is top notch, and manages to walk the fine line between comedy and action perfectly. The Nazi’s return as villains and we get a female lead you don’t want to leave in the middle of the jungle this time. Add to this the continued use of some great practical effect and wonderful action scenes and it’s clear to see why so many people love this movie.

What makes the film however is the interactions between Henry Jones Sr and Indiana. We love Indy. We think he’s awesome. He’s the epitome of cool to us, so it’s funny as Hell to see his Dad look at all the awesome stuff he does do and then look completely unimpressed as he winds his watch. There are parts in this film which I still laugh at now, even after multiple viewings, because it’s just that good. Connery and Ford work perfectly off of one another and it’s this aspect which secures it as my favourite in the series.

A great end to a great series and that last shot of them riding off into the sunset just cements how perfectly to end the adventure 5/5

Wilhelm Scream #23

#260 Marnie

Upon discovering he has a compulsive liar, man-hater and thief working for him, Mark Rutland (Sean Connery) blackmails the young woman Marnie (Tippi Hedren) into becoming his wife in order to try and cure her. Not wishing to go to jail, Marnie agrees but attempts to stymie Mark at ever opportunity. Will he be able to break her or will she eventually escape his clutches?

Perhaps it’s because I haven’t watched a Hitchcock film for a while but I just could not get into this one at all. It’s as well shot and as well acted as always (Hedren especially shining in the title role) but something about it just did not resonate with me.

I think the main thing I just couldn’t get behind was the misogynistic feel of the entire film. Often with films from the 60’s (Marnie being released in ‘64) you can forgive this purely as a byproduct of the time. In this film however, it’s just so ever present it leaves a bad taste behind. Mark’s urge to cure Marnie’s psychosis is one thing but the way he goes about doing it, his secondary motives for doing it and his attitude as he goes about doing it, coupled with events of the movie, all paint a horribly sexist picture of his character which I don’t think was the intend message of the filmmakers. Additionally, Marnie’s character flip-flops from a strong female character (something I feel Hitchcock is usually very good at creating) to a weak willed individual as the scene demands it entirely so it suits the story or Mark’s position.

Other than the misogynistic overtones, Connery performance also doesn’t lend itself to an enjoyable viewing experience. He’s pretty much still playing James Bond, which without the gravity of the mission or the stature of his position means Mark comes off as a cocky self righteous prick with control issues and some deep seated emotional problems of his own. I don’t relate to his character, if anything I find him the villain of the entire piece psychologically torturing and abusing this non-sexual/possibly lesbian woman into the mould of a proper 60’s housewife.

Despite everything I’ve said here I still found the idea of someone trying to unravel why a compulsive liar and thief is the way they are a good enough concept that I can see the merit of this piece. I just wish it had focused entirely on that rather than also re-establishing the gender roles of the era. I would quite like to see a remake of this film done more in the vein of the former 2/5

#96 Diamonds Are Forever

(Rewatch)

After tracking down and killing Blofeld (Charles Gray) for the murder of his wife, Bond (Sean Connery) is sent to Amsterdam to look into a diamond smuggling ring. There he meets the beautiful Tiffany Case (Jill St. John), while posing as a smuggler, and has to help her get the cargo through customs to Las Vegas for the reclusive Willard White (Jimmy Dean).

DAF marks the return of, and final official appearance of, Sean Connery in the role of James Bond. After George Lazenby left after a single film there was initially a search for the new Bond. The producers even went so far as to sign on John Gavin, most famous for playing Janet Leigh’s boyfriend Sam Loomis in Hitchcock’s Psycho, but the heads of United Artists were set on Connery returning to the role stating money was no object. Connery returned for a single performance provided United Artists would back two future movies of his choice and paid him 1.2 million dollars (15.9 million in today’s money). They did and so he returned.

You can tell Connery wasn’t really here for the role this time around. He was proficient enough but the luster he had for the character was gone and he seemed to be purely going through the motions. He was also looking rather old in the part by this point. It was beginning to look a little weird that he was getting all the women he was.

It’s also probable he didn’t watch On Her Majesty’s Secret Service because the last scene we see of that is a heart broken Bond holding his dead wife. This film begins with him killing Blofeld for this but it just looks like any standard mission up until that point. He was playing Bond the same way he always did but there should have been more to the act of killing Blofeld than just “ha i finally got you” with his cheeky grin and a one liner. It doesn’t fit properly.

Jill St John is the first American Bond girl. Some found her character annoying, and there is definitely a lack of elegance which had come to be synonymous with the main leading lady, but personally I think she worked well enough for the setting. Also the scene in which she is naked on the bed covered by the white animal skin might be one of the most sexy poses in the series since Andress emerged from the sea and Shirley Eaton lounged on the bed.

The villains are lacking this time around. Blofeld was a lot more menacing in both of his other installments. Charles Gray just came off as a little foppish in my mind. He definitely had the intelligence of the character down but it was all just a little too camp. Also Mr Wint (Bruce Glover), Mr Kidd (Putter Smith), Bambi (Lola Larson) and Thumper (Trina Parks) were all really stupid characters and never felt intimidating.

The setting was a little bit of a let down this time as well. Las Vegas may have seemed exotic at the time but now it just looks kinda skeezy. A film ago we were in the Alps, and before that, Japan and the Bahamas. The entire thing just felt a little weak.

Finally, the moon buggy chase might have been the passing of the torch for the series. Connery, and even Lazenby’s, movies were spy dramas, with a couple of gadgets thrown in, but they were always supposed to be taken somewhat seriously. The Roger Moore era Bond films were more comedies that happened to have some cool action in them. Others might say the jetpack in Thunderball or Little Nelly in YOLT is where it began to favour this but for me it was the moon buggy in this film.

More interesting than OHMSS for me but definitely the weakest of Connery’s films. 2/5

Donald Pleasence in You Only Live Twice

Telly Savalas in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

Charle Gray in Diamonds Are Forever

Ok try this one on for size: Bond (Sean Connery) meets Blofeld (Pleasence) in YOLT. Then he meets him again in OHMSS but neither of them recognise each other even though they’ve already met and should.

This is even more confusing for the audience now as both Bond and Blofeld are being played by different actors, George Lazenby and Savalas, but are supposed to be the same characters with no facial alteration (except Blofeld cutting off his earlobes).

They then meet again in DAF but Bond is now Connery again and Blofeld is Gray. At least this time Blofeld is supposed to have undergone plastic surgery.

But it’s not done yet, Gray already played Bond’s ally in Japan, Dikko Henderson, in YOLT with Connery.

Finally Bond (Roger Moore) kills Blofeld (probably) in For Your Eyes Only but his face is never seen. The dubbed voice used for this is Robert Rietty, who also dubbed the voices of Emilo Largo in Thunderball and Dr Strangways in Dr No.

My head hurts :S

#94 On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

(Rewatch)

While on leave James Bond (George Lazenby) starts to pursue an interesting woman he saved from killing herself, the Contessa Teresa ‘Tracy’ di Vicenzo (Diane Rigg). Her father is the boss of the largest crime organisation in Europe (only rivaled by SPECTRE operating worldwide). Her father implores Bond to marry his daughter so that he may tame her wild spirit and in return he will give Bond the current location of Blofeld. Tracy discovers this deal however, and makes her father tell Bond the location for nothing. It is now up to Bond to discover what Blofeld is up to before it is to late.

This film marks the departure of Sean Connery from his original run as Bond and ushers in…sigh…George Lazenby as the new 007. I’m going to be very up front about this before I even begin any sort of analysis of the film. George Lazenby is my least favourite of all the Bonds and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (OHMSS) my least favourite of all 22 films (although some of the later Roger Moore films begin to push the boundaries as well).

There seems to be a very clear divide between those that like and dislike this film and I think it largely depends on if you’ve read Ian Fleming’s novels or not. This film is the one which most closely follows the storyline of the book (even going so far as to mess up continuity with the previous film because of it). I’ve never read any of the books so what I’m looking for in a Bond film is adventure, charisma, some good action and a good villain. OHMSS has a few of these elements but misses just as many.

Before this role George Lazenby was best known for some commercials and that is about it. He was a model in Australia so he was chosen mainly because he looked good for the part rather than for acting ability. Overall he’s not the worst actor I’ve seen, by far, and to give him credit where credit is due his fight scenes are actually really good but he’s just so bland. Everything about him was so vanilla it makes it boring to watch. Bond should be commanding the attention of everyone in the room when he walks in in a tuxedo but Lazenby looked like he was relieving the waiting staff. It just did not work. I’m so glad he had a bad agent, who told him Bond would be dead within the next couple of years, and agreed only to do 1 film when he was offered a contract for up to 7. In my mind there would have been no way the franchise would have survived that.

Some people say others are too harsh on the film itself just because they don’t like Lazenby and, had Connery stayed on, it would have been better received but I disagree. I think there was a general failing across this entire film. You Only Live Twice comes after OHMSS in the books and was scheduled to do so with the films, but due to inability to find a suitable mountain location the two were switched. This screwed the pooch as it meant Blofeld and Bond were interacting with one another as if they hadn’t met in this film when clearly they did in the previous one. Bonds whole plan is to pretend to be someone else to try and lure Blofeld away from his hideout rather than having to take on all his goons and guns. This does not work when they’ve already seen each other and are now talking as if it’s the first time.

Additionally this film doesn’t work because it feels like two plots merged together. Blofeld hypnotises girls and is planning to use them to disperse a biological agent which causes infertility in all species of plant and animal across the globe. That’s silly but it’s not really any worse than some of the other Bond films. It could have worked if they had devoted the whole movie to it but Bond is off frolicking with Tracy for the first 40 minutes or so. The two halves feel really disjointed and means they have to shoehorn Tracy into the rest of the film so it make sense when he marries her over any other random bond girl.

I could rant about this film for a long time but I want to identify three elements I thought worked. The skiing sequences are all pretty good and work well as action scenes. The musical score for OHMSS is also very good and was used in some later Bonds as a result. Finally Diana Riggs as Tracy works really well. You can see why Bond does decides to marry her and it continues the trend of including more intelligent and interesting leading ladies to the films.

If I hadn’t decided to review all 22 films I would definitely have skipped this film. It just holds no interest for me and serves as a cautionary tale for what could have happened to the franchise. 0.5/5

Does anyone else thing Sean Connery looks more like a Vulcan than Japanese when they try to make him blend in with the Japanese fishing community in You Only Live Twice?